X hits on this document





32 / 47

Defendants also argue that the CAC fails to allege scienter with respect to the

individual defendants. The Court agrees. The CAC does not clearly distinguish among

the individual defendants – Whitney, Simon, Kane, Novas, Maturo and Masheck – but

rather refers to them together as the “Individual Defendants” (e.g., CAC at ¶¶ 11, 12,

114) or together with the Company as the “Defendants” (e.g., CAC at ¶¶ 2, 17, 19, 21,

23, 24, 26, 37, 44, 47, 49, 53, 54, 57, 59, 61, 65, 66, 69, 76, 77, 87, 88, 89, 91, 93, 94,

95). “Rule 9(b) does not allow a complaint to merely ‘lump’ multiple defendants together

but ‘require[s] plaintiffs to differentiate their allegations when suing more than one

defendant . . . and inform each defendant separately of the allegations surrounding his

alleged participation in the fraud.’” Bruhl v. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Int’l, No.

03-23044-Civ-MARRA, 2007 WL 997362, *3 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 27, 2007) (citations

omitted). In Bruhl, the court noted that the plaintiffs had lumped together two of the

defendants, a parent and its purported subsidiary – Citco Group Limited and Citco

Funds Services (Curacao), N.V. – referring to them throughout the complaint

interchangably as the “Citco Defendants.” Id. at *2-3. Explaining that “in a case

involving multiple defendants, the complaint should inform each defendant of the nature

of his alleged participation in the fraud,” the court held that this type of pleading was

inconsistent with Rule 9(b) and a ground for dismissal. Id. at *3. As in Bruhl, the CAC

fails to adequately distinguish the individual defendants and is therefore subject to


Moreover, the supplemental chart does not directly link the individual defendants

to plaintiff’s three theories of fraud. Instead, plaintiff makes general allegations that the

individual defendants engaged in isolated stock sales, held senior management


Document info
Document views193
Page views193
Page last viewedMon Jan 23 14:50:43 UTC 2017